Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T12:01:08.383Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Equality, Proportionality, and the All-Affected Principle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Jonas Hultin Rosenberg
Jonas Hultin Rosenberg*
Affiliation:
Uppsala University and University of Copenhagen
*
E-mail: Jonas.hultin_rosenberg@statsvet.uu.se
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The question of who ought to be included in the demos is distinct from, and yet related to, the question of how to distribute decision-making power among those who are included. Political equality is the most common answer to the former question within democratic theory. In democratic practice, it is usually realized through one person one vote. Within democratic theory, there is not as much agreement as to what the answer to the latter question should be. The answer that has attracted most attention within the scholarly literature is that all those who are affected should be included. However, prominent scholars have argued that this all-affected principle is incompatible with political equality and therefore an unattractive answer to the question of inclusion. This article challenges this critique and argues that it is based on a misconception of political equality and a narrow reading of the all-affected principle.

Keywords

all-affected principledemocratic theoryinclusionnumeric equalitypolitical equalityproportional equalityproportionality principle

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Democratic Theory , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , June 2019 , pp. 73 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © Berghahn Books 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arrhenius, Gustaf. 2005. “The Boundary Problem in Democratic Theory”. In Democracy Unbound: Basic Explorations, ed. F., Tersman, 14–29. Stockholm: Stockholm University Press.Google Scholar
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. Roger, Crisp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beckman, Ludvig. 2006. “Citizenship and Voting Rights: Should Resident Aliens Vote…” Citizenship Studies 10 (2): 153–165.10.1080/13621020600633093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Ludvig. 2008. “Democratic Inclusion, Law, and Causes.” Ratio Juris 21 (3): 348–364.10.1111/j.1467-9337.2008.00394.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Ludvig. 2014. “The Subjects of Collectively Binding Decisions: Democratic Inclusion and Extraterritorial Law.” Ratio Juris 27 (2): 252–270.10.1111/raju.12038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Ludvig, and Jonas, Hultin Rosenberg. 2017. “Freedom as Non-Domination and Democratic Inclusion.” Res Publica 24 (2): 181–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beitz, Charles R. 1989. Political Equality: An Essay in Democratic Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bergström, Lars. 2007. “Democracy and Political Boundaries.” In The Viability and Desirability of Global Democracy, ed. F., Tersman, 147–172. Stockholm: Stockholm University Press.Google Scholar
Brighouse, Harry, and Marc, Fleurbaey. 2010. “Democracy and Proportionality.” Journal of Political Philosophy 18 (2): 137–155.10.1111/j.1467-9760.2008.00316.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheneval, Frances. 2011. “Constituting the Dêmoi Democratically.” Working Paper (50). University of Zurich, National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR).Google Scholar
Christiano, Thomas. 2006. “A Democratic Theory of Territory and Some Puzzles about Global Democracy.” Journal of Social Philosophy 37 (1): 81–107.10.1111/j.1467-9833.2006.00304.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1990. After the Revolution… Authority in a Good Society. Revised edition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Erman, Eva. 2013. “In Search for Democratic Agency in Deliberative Governance.” European Journal of International Relations 19 (4): 847–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erman, Eva. 2014. “The Boundary Problem and the Ideal of Democracy.” Constellations 21 (4): 535–546.10.1111/1467-8675.12116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erman, Eva. 2016. “Global Political Legitimacy beyond Justice and Democracy…” International Theory 8 (1): 29–62.10.1017/S1752971915000196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erman, Eva, and Andreas, Follesdal. 2012. “Multiple Citizenship: Normative Ideals and Institutional Challenges.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 15 (3): 279–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espejo, Paulina O. 2014. “People, Territory, and Legitimacy in Democratic States.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (2): 466–478.10.1111/ajps.12064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 2007. “Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and Its Alternatives.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 35 (1): 40–68.10.1111/j.1088-4963.2007.00098.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 2016. “Enfranchising All Subjected, Worldwide.” International Theory. doi:10.1017/S1752971916000105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosepath, Stefan. 2011. “Equality.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E. N., Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/equality/.Google Scholar
Gould, Carol C. 2004. Globalizing Democracy and Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511617096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlsson Schaffer, Johan. 2012. “The Boundaries of Transnational Democracy: Alternatives to the All-Affected Principle.” Review of International Studies 38 (2): 321–342.10.1017/S0260210510001749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Richard S. 1997. Democracy and Elections. Cambridge, UK: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195044294.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenig Archibugi, Mattias. 2012. “Fuzzy Citizenship in Global Society.” Journal of Political Philosophy 20: 456–480. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2011.00405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagerspetz, Eerik. 2015. “Democracy and the All-Affected Principle.” Res Cogitas 10 (1): 6–23.Google Scholar
López-Guerra, Cladio. 2014. Democracy and Disenfranchisement: The Morality of Electoral Exclusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marchetti, Raffaele. 2012. “Models of Global Democracy.” In Global Democracy: Normative and Empirical Perspectives, ed. D., Archibugi, M., Koenig-Archibugi, and R., Marchetti, 22–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mellqvist, Einar D. 1974. Merit-based voting rights… The parliamentary debate on the municipal voting rights in Sweden 1862-1900 [Original title: Rösträtt efter förtjänst… Riksdagsdebatten om den kommunala rösträtten i Sverige 1862–1900]. Stockholm: Stadshistoriska institutionen.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1861. Considerations on Representative Government. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, David. 1997. “Equality and Justice.” Ratio 10 (3): 222–237.10.1111/1467-9329.00042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, David. 2009. “Democracy's Domain.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 37 (3): 201–228.10.1111/j.1088-4963.2009.01158.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Joseph J. 2003. “J.S. Mill on Plural Voting, Competence and Participation.” History of Political Thought 24 (4): 647–667.Google Scholar
Näsström, Sofia. 2011. “The Challenge of the All-Affected Principle.” Political Studies 59: 116–134.10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00845.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, David. 2012. “Constituting the Polity, Constituting the Demos: On the Place of the All Affected Interests Principle in Democratic Theory and in Resolving the Democratic Boundary Problem.” Ethics & Global Politics 5 (3): 129–152.10.3402/egp.v5i3.18617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riley, John. 1990. “Utilitarian Ethics and Democratic Government.” Ethics 100 (2): 335–348.10.1086/293180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, Ben. 2010. “Democracy, Political Equality, and Majority Rule.” Ethics 121 (1): 148–177.10.1086/656474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
Sidgwick, Henry. 1981. The Methods of Ethics. 7th edition. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Song, Sarah. 2012. “The Boundary Problem in Democratic Theory: Why the Demos Should Be Bounded by the State.” International Theory 4 (1): 39–68.10.1017/S1752971911000248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temkin, Larry. 2017. “Equality as Comparative Fairness.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 34 (1): 43–60. doi:10.1111/japp.12140.Google Scholar
Valentini, Laura. 2014. “No Global Demos, No Global Democracy… A Systematization and Critique.” Perspectives on Politics 12 (4): 789–807.10.1017/S1537592714002138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, Steven. 2007. “Democracy and Equality.” The Philosophical Quarterly 57 (228): 416–438.10.1111/j.1467-9213.2007.495.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whelan, G. Frederick. 1983. “Prologue: Democratic Theory and the Boundary Problem.” In Liberal Democracy, ed. J. R., Pennock and J. W., Chapman, Nomos Vol. 25: 13–47. Cambridge, UK: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Whitt, Matt. 2014. “Democracy's Sovereign Enclosures: Territory and the All-Affected Principle.” Constellations 21 (4): 560–574. doi:10.1111/1467-8675.12122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar